New from Ikea: Flat-pack houses
This is the benefit of stacking the courts: everything is legal - even if it's potentially illegal - if the court won't even look at the case.
John Howard won't sign Kyoto because he says it would be economically damaging to Australia; it "would have disadvantaged Australian industry". But then he says that "Australia is on track to meet its own Kyoto targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." There appears to be a large contradiction there, leaving aside the fact the we can't have our "own Kyoto targets" if we haven't signed Kyoto. We're on track to meet reductions targets. These are the same targets that we would have if we'd signed Kyoto. These are the same targets that the government says would damage Australian industry. But we're on track to meet them without damaging or disadvantaging Australian industry. So doesn't that prove the 'signing Kyoto will disadvantage Australian industry' thing is false? (My own opinion, informed only by my own cynicism, is that the government is lying about being on track to meet Kyoto targets.)
[If I'm being totally honest (and I'm not saying if I am) I'd like for nothing to be done about global warming. I think it would be fun living in 'interesting' times. I like maps and aerial photos and such, so it would be fun to go down to the beach and every so often and go "I remember when the water was only up to here, I remember when that island was a part of the mainland" - it'd be like living in southern Louisiana. Let's face it, I don't know anyone personally who lives in any of these threatened Pacific Island countries, so while it will be sad if loads of them die, it's not going to affect me personally. Mind you, I don't have kids. I might feel differently if I had to worry about future generations. But I doubt it, since I'm dead inside.]